Patna High Court
Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar through Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Unit, Patna, Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, finding that the prolonged incarceration and stage of trial justified release under Article 21 despite the NDPS statutory embargo.
Summary
Rakesh Singh, the owner of a truck from which 425 kg of ganja was seized, has been in custody since March 2021 pending trial under the NDPS Act. He applied for regular bail, arguing that five years of pre‑trial detention, the early stage of trial with only two witnesses examined, and lack of substantive evidence warrant his release. The State contended that the concealed chamber in the vehicle demonstrated mens rea and a high likelihood of conviction. The Court examined the twin conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, held that prolonged incarceration infringes Article 21 and outweighs the statutory embargo. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail of Rs 10,000 with two local sureties and imposed several conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner satisfies the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail after prolonged pre‑trial detention.
- Whether the petitioner’s right to liberty under Article 21 overrides the statutory restriction on bail in NDPS cases.
Legislation cited
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 20, 25, 29, 37, 8
Subjects
- bail
- NDPS Act
- pre‑trial detention
- Article 21
- concealed chamber
- truck owner
- long incarceration
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76654 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2016 Thana- ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BIHAR
District- Patna
======================================================
Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh S/o Lakshman Singh R/o Village-
Vishwambharpur, Sutihar, P.S.- Derni, District- Saran, Bihar- 841222
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar through Superintendent of Police, Economic Offence Unit,
Patna, Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kr. Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Prakash Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
7 17-04-2026 Heard Mr. Abhishek Kr. Pandey along with Mr.
Prakash Raj, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr. Vijay Anand, learned counsel for the
Economic Offence Unit, Bihar.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Special (NDPS) Case No.8000077 of 2016, Supplementary
Record of Special Case No.20 of 2016 arising out of Economic
Offence P.S. Case No.04/2016 registered for the offence(s)
punishable under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(c)/25/29 of NDPS Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, 425 kg. of
Ganja was recovered from a truck bearing Registration No.OR-
09L-7645.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the FIR is of the year 2016 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76654 of 2025(7) dt.17-04-2026
2/6
petitioner was taken into custody on 08.03.2021 and since then
he is in custody. Learned counsel further submitted that the
earlier regular bail applications of the petitioner was disposed of
vide order dated 05.05.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No.62849 of
2021 and order dated 20.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.33465
of 2024. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail on the
ground of long incarceration which according to him is about 5
years and also on the ground that the other co-accused who was
convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
11 years and fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- and in default of payment of
fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months,
had filed appeal before this Court being Criminal Appeal (DB)
No.618 of 2021 and vide order dated 11.08.2022, the sentence
of the appellant was suspended and bail was granted to the said
co-accused by this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that
petitioner has remained in custody nearly for five years and the
trial is at very early stage in which only two witnesses have
been examined. Learned counsel further submitted that the
petitioner has every chance to be acquitted by the trial court in
absence of any evidence considering the fact that merely on
suspicion that the petitioner is owner of the truck bearing
Registration No.OR-09L-7645 from which a concealed chamber
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76654 of 2025(7) dt.17-04-2026
3/6
was allegedly discovered, containing a large quantity of ganja.
It is also the case of the petitioner that he has been implicated in
the present case matter merely on suspicion, which significantly
diminishes the evidentiary value of the allegations against him,
and as such, there being no likelihood that the petitioner will be
convicted, the petitioner becomes entitled to be released on bail,
so that liberty granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India should not be defeated. A reference in this regard has been
made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Rabi
Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha (SLP (Cri) No(s). 4169 of
2023), reported in 2023 Live Law SC 533, wherein in similar
circumstances considering the custody of the accused for about
3 and a half years, who was made accused merely because he
was one of the occupants of the truck and was arrested on the
spot, was granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On these
grounds, petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Per contra, Mr. Vijay Anand, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the EOI, Bihar, submitted that the
petitioner, being the owner of the truck, was actively involved in
the illegal smuggling and sale of narcotics. It is argued that the
very existence of a concealed chamber in the vehicle indicates a
premeditated design and mens rea to commit the offence,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76654 of 2025(7) dt.17-04-2026
4/6
thereby disentitling the petitioner from being granted bail, even
the petitioner having been in custody for 5 years. Learned
counsel further submitted that, on the basis of the seizure list,
even in the absence of any prosecution witnesses supporting the
petitioner’s case, there remains a strong likelihood of conviction
in the present matter, particularly in view of the fact that the co-
accused has already been convicted. On these grounds, learned
counsel submitted that petitioner don’t deserve to be released on
bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, I find that I have already disposed of the bail
application of the petitioner twice, however, considering the
long incarceration of the petitioner in custody and only two
witnesses have been examined as has been informed and has not
been denied by the prosecution, I find that it apt to take the
observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Rabi Prakash (Supra) in paragraphs no.3, 4 and 6, which are
inter alia reproduced hereinafter:-
“3.We are informed that the trial has
commenced but only 1 out of the 19 witnesses has
been examined. The conclusion of trial will, thus,
take some more time.
4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the
respondent - State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1 st
condition stands complied with. So far as the 2 nd
condition re: formation of opinion as to whether
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76654 of 2025(7) dt.17-04-2026
5/6
there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed
at this stage when he has already spent more than
three and a half years in custody. The prolonged
incarceration, generally militates against the most
precious fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a
situation, the conditional liberty must override the
statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii)
of the NDPS Act.
5. However, we find some merit in the contention of
learned counsel for the respondent - State that the
petitioner being not a resident of the State of Orissa,
some stringent conditions are required to be
imposed upon him.
6. Consequently, while directing that the petitioner
shall be released on bail on his furnishing bail
bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, it is
directed that he shall be required to produce two
local sureties before the Trial Court. The petitioner
shall also appear before the Trial Court on every
date of hearing. In case he absents himself, it shall
be taken as a misuse of concession of bail granted to
him today by this Court. Ordered accordingly.”
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find
that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the fact of
the case of Rabi Prakash (Supra) and at the same time, long
incarceration of five years, entitles the petitioner to be released
on bail to safeguard his right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
8. The learned District Court is directed to release the
petitioner, above named, on bail upon furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 141- Exclusive
Special Court No.1, Patna in connection with Special (NDPS)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76654 of 2025(7) dt.17-04-2026
6/6
Case No.8000077 of 2016, Supplementary Record of Special
Case No.20 of 2016 arising out of Economic Offence P.S. Case
No.04/2016 subject to the following conditions:
(i) Bailors should be local having sufficient
immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Court
concerned.
(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court.
(iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty
to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar
nature of offence, after his release on bail, the learned District
Court shall take steps to cancel his bail bond.
(v) The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner as stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioner as what has been stated in
paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…